A new bill, backed by several senators, aims to impose strict restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots by requiring age verifications for all users and prohibiting access to these tools for individuals under the age of 18. The proposal, known as the GUARD Act, also includes severe criminal penalties for platforms that promote or solicit harmful behaviors. Although the initial goals may seem reasonable, critics warn that this bill could lead to a regime of surveillance and censorship that would drastically alter the way people interact online, especially among young people.
The GUARD Act is presented as a child safety measure, but it translates into a “age checks” mandate that could apply to nearly all chatbots targeted at the public, from customer service assistants to search tools. As a result, numerous AI companies would be forced to collect sensitive identification data, negatively impacting online freedom of expression, interfering with privacy, and limiting teenagers’ access to essential digital tools for their daily lives.
Another concerning aspect of the bill is the lack of consideration for parents, as it would simply block minors from all AI platforms. If an age verification system determines that a user is under 18 years old, they will be completely denied access, raising serious doubts about the absence of a parental consent mechanism and the lack of an appeal process in case of age estimation errors.
The impact of the GUARD Act is not limited to young people, as all platforms will need to validate users’ ages. This requires the implementation of verification systems that collect identifying information, posing significant privacy risks. Historically, these systems have been vulnerable to cyberattacks, endangering the identity of millions of users.
Additionally, the vague definitions of “AI chatbot” and “AI companion” in the bill are alarming. These broad definitions could encompass almost all systems capable of generating “human” responses, potentially leading companies to restrict minors’ access to educational and customer service tools, limiting their development and access to crucial information.
Supporters of this legislation argue that its aim is to protect minors, but it could actually have the opposite effect, replacing parental guidance with government mandates and establishing a massive surveillance infrastructure instead of enhancing privacy control. The combination of imprecise definitions and severe fines, which could reach up to $100,000 per violation, will incentivize platforms to further restrict access to their services.
In conclusion, although online youth safety is a complex issue, the GUARD Act offers a drastic solution that could harm both freedom of expression and privacy on the internet. It is crucial for legislators to reconsider this proposal and focus their efforts on policies that promote transparency and comprehensive privacy for all users.
via: MiMub in Spanish